Minimum

# Minimum — Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus + AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT

This combination of Intel's 24-core Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD's Radeon RX 9070 XT delivers a thoroughly playable experience in Minimum, a 2014 third-person shooter. The measured frames-per-second data spans three resolutions and four quality presets, with the strongest results at 1080p and 1440p, while 4K remains viable on lower presets. The combo ranks 650th out of 2,939 tested configurations, placing it comfortably in the top quarter of all systems evaluated for this game.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution to play at with this combo?

A: At 1920x1080, every preset delivers at least 136 FPS on average, with Low reaching 278 FPS. At 2560x1440, even Ultra maintains 88 FPS average, while Low hits 179 FPS. At 3840x2160, only Low (97 FPS) and Medium (74 FPS) achieve smooth gameplay, with Ultra dropping to 47 FPS.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has an average benchmark score of 84,003, which is 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83,807) and 1.1% higher than the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83,090). It trails the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3% (85,072 vs. 84,003).

Q: What is the GPU's performance percentile?

A: The Radeon RX 9070 XT sits in the 55th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 13,543, which is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon HD 7770M (13,536, 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 (13,515, 0.2% difference).

Q: Does the GPU have enough VRAM for 4K gaming?

A: Yes, with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus (644.6 GB/s bandwidth), the RX 9070 XT has ample capacity for 4K textures. The measured data shows 4K Medium averaging 74 FPS with a minimum of 63 FPS, indicating the memory subsystem handles the load well.

Q: What CPU specs matter most for this game?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz. Its single-thread performance is strong (7,303 in Cinebench R23 single-core), which benefits older games like Minimum that may rely on fewer threads.

Q: Is this combo overkill for 1080p play?

A: The data suggests yes for most presets — at 1080p Low, the combo produces 278 FPS average, which far exceeds typical 144Hz or 240Hz display refresh rates. Even at 1080p Ultra, 136 FPS average is above the 120Hz threshold.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the primary driver of frame rates in this benchmark set. Built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with a Navi 48 chip, it operates at a base clock of 1660 MHz, a game clock of 2400 MHz, and a boost clock of 2970 MHz. The GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory runs at 2518 MHz (20.1 Gbps effective), delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth through a 256-bit interface. This memory configuration is particularly relevant for Minimum at high resolutions, where texture streaming and frame buffer demands increase.

The GPU's compute specifications include 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput of 48.66 TFLOPS (with FP16 at the same 1:1 rate) provides ample raw compute for a 2014 title. The pixel rate of 380.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 760.3 GTexel/s directly influence how quickly the GPU can fill frames and apply textures, which explains the strong scaling seen across settings.

In benchmark results, the RX 9070 XT scores 26,795 in Passmark G3D and 15,864 in GPU compute. Its DirectX 12 score of 78 in Passmark and 7,260 in 3DMark Steel Nomad indicate modern API efficiency, though Minimum from 2014 likely relies on older DirectX paths. The GPU's DirectX 11 score of 292 and DirectX 10 score of 154 in Passmark suggest legacy API performance is adequate but not exceptional — this may explain why the game's frame rates don't scale linearly with raw compute.

The 55th percentile ranking among all GPUs places the RX 9070 XT in the middle of the pack, but its nearest rivals (HD 7770M, GTX 570, P106-090, Radeon Pro 555) all have average scores within 1% of this card. This suggests the RX 9070 XT's benchmark position is competitive but not dominant, yet the measured game performance tells a more favorable story — particularly at lower resolutions where the GPU isn't the limiting factor.

Settings Recommendations

For a smooth 60 FPS experience at 3840x2160, the Medium preset is the safest choice. The measured data shows 74 FPS average with a minimum of 63 FPS and maximum of 85 FPS — the minimum stays above 60, indicating consistent frame delivery. Low at 4K offers 97 FPS average, which provides more headroom for demanding scenes, but Medium's visual quality uplift is worth the 23 FPS average cost. High at 4K drops to 62 FPS average, which is technically playable but leaves no margin for frame drops. Ultra at 4K (47 FPS average) should be avoided for serious play.

At 2560x1440, the High preset delivers 115 FPS average, which is ideal for 100Hz+ displays. Medium provides 137 FPS average with a minimum of 117 FPS and maximum of 158 FPS, making it the best balance of quality and performance for competitive play. Low hits 179 FPS average for esports-style responsiveness, while Ultra still manages 88 FPS average — playable but with less headroom. For most users, Medium at 1440p is the recommended sweet spot.

At 1920x1080, all presets exceed 130 FPS average. High delivers 179 FPS, Medium 213 FPS (minimum 181, maximum 245), Low 278 FPS, and Ultra 136 FPS. For high-refresh-rate monitors (144Hz or 240Hz), Medium or Low are optimal. Ultra at 136 FPS is still smooth for 120Hz displays. Given that even Ultra exceeds 135 FPS, the GPU is clearly not the bottleneck at 1080p — CPU and memory bandwidth play larger roles here.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the scaling across presets is steep. Low produces 97 FPS average, Medium drops to 74 FPS (min 63, max 85), High falls to 62 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 47 FPS. The step from Low to Medium costs 23 FPS (about 24% reduction), while Medium to High costs another 12 FPS (16% reduction). The High to Ultra step costs 15 FPS (24% reduction). This pattern suggests each preset tier adds meaningful visual workload, with Ultra being particularly demanding.

At 2560x1440, the performance curve is more forgiving. Low averages 179 FPS, Medium 137 FPS (min 117, max 158), High 115 FPS, and Ultra 88 FPS. The Low to Medium drop is 42 FPS (23% reduction), Medium to High is 22 FPS (16% reduction), and High to Ultra is 27 FPS (23% reduction). The minimum frame rates at Medium (117 FPS) and maximum (158 FPS) show good frame pacing, with only a 41 FPS spread between the 1% low and peak.

At 1920x1080, the combo truly shines. Low averages 278 FPS, Medium 213 FPS (min 181, max 245), High 179 FPS, and Ultra 136 FPS. The Low to Medium reduction is 65 FPS (23%), Medium to High is 34 FPS (16%), and High to Ultra is 43 FPS (24%). The Medium preset's minimum of 181 FPS ensures smooth gameplay even in heavy scenes, while the 245 FPS maximum shows the hardware can push well beyond typical display refresh rates.

Comparing across resolutions at the same preset: Medium at 1080p (213 FPS) vs. 1440p (137 FPS) vs. 4K (74 FPS) shows a 36% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 46% drop from 1440p to 4K. This scaling aligns with pixel count increases (1.78x from 1080p to 1440p, 2.25x from 1440p to 4K), indicating the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo ranks 650th out of 2,939 tested configurations in Minimum, placing it in the top 22% of all systems. This is a strong showing for a CPU+GPU pairing where the GPU sits at the 55th percentile overall — the game clearly favors this hardware combination. The rank suggests that Minimum is more CPU-sensitive than GPU-heavy, given that the RX 9070 XT's mid-pack GPU percentile doesn't prevent a top-quartile overall result.

The CPU's 96th percentile ranking among all processors (average benchmark score 84,003) likely contributes significantly to this outcome. In a 2014 title, the Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's 24 cores and 5.80 GHz boost clock provide substantial headroom for game logic, physics, and draw call processing. The 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth reduce latency bottlenecks that might otherwise limit frame rates.

Compared to other combos in the database, being in the 650th position out of 2,939 means roughly 2,289 tested configurations performed worse. This is particularly notable given that the GPU's nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks (HD 7770M, GTX 570) are significantly older parts — the RX 9070 XT's modern architecture (RDNA 4.0, 4 nm process, 53,900 million transistors) clearly offers advantages in real-world gaming beyond what synthetic averages capture.

CPU Role

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is the unsung hero of this combo. With 24 cores and 24 threads (no hyperthreading), it presents a unified processing array that handles both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads efficiently. The base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.80 GHz provide a wide frequency range, with the boost clock being particularly valuable for games that rely on single-thread performance.

In Cinebench benchmarks, the CPU scores 7,303 in R23 single-core and 51,731 in R23 multi-core. The single-core score is 96th percentile among all CPUs, which directly benefits Minimum's likely single-threaded game logic. The multi-core score of 21,727 in R20 shows strong scaling across all 24 cores, useful for background tasks while gaming.

The 36 MB of shared L3 cache (with 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core) provides a large, fast cache pool for frequently accessed game data. The 3 nm TSMC process (17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die) keeps power efficiency high — the 125W TDP is manageable for most cooling solutions. Memory support for DDR5 in dual-channel configuration (115.2 GB/s bandwidth) ensures the CPU can feed the GPU without starving it.

In Passmark tests, the CPU scores 60,860 in multithread, 4,823 in single-thread, and 3,315 in physics. The physics score is particularly relevant for a third-person shooter like Minimum, where collision detection and object interactions rely on CPU compute. The data compression score of 698,346 and encryption score of 52,563 indicate strong general-purpose throughput that keeps frame times consistent even with background processes active.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are all high-end parts: the Core Ultra 9 285K (0.2% slower), AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% slower), AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% slower), and AMD EPYC 7F72 (1.3% faster). This places the 290K Plus at the top of its performance class, with the EPYC 7F72 being the only nearby chip that edges it out. For gaming specifically, the 290K Plus's higher boost clock and desktop-oriented design likely provide better real-world performance than the server-focused EPYC parts.